I believe opinions are fine to have, the problem comes with tone, like this thread suggests. The issue comes when someone tries to push their opinion on others. Like religion and politics this is nothing but trouble when you approach it like this. Others Will disagree with an opinion and will state their own as a response every single time. Undead asked if a color blind person was wrong for saying grass is green, that is not completely false because he is presenting his point of view. It's when someone brings a counter argument, like he should remember he is color blind so he is missing a portion of the facts, and he still insists his opinions are absolute.

I see online many people trying to insist that the Earth is actually flat because they don't see the roundness. That is an argument based on little to no facts and is just an Ideology (i.e. and opinion) and when presented with a counter argument suggesting the world is round and evidence supports this as a truth is the Flat Earth still a viable opinion? And is it right when they insult everyone who questions them as being mislead sheep? Should the pro-round group back down and say their opinion is as valid as the proof that says otherwise?

The tone has absolutely gotten out of control and I was apart of that, but step back and let's admit opinions are fine but there is definitely a line when an opinion should just be stopped being expressed because it is poisonous logic. I can't turn back my knowledge and say Flat Earthers could be right because they have an opinion because they are just plain wrong. Now are the current complaints wrong? So far the evidence seems to favor one side but it is still local regions subjective. So it's not 100% either way, but there is no reason to start the fight in the first place. People are naturally defensive and it takes a lot of effort not to be. So don't start an aggressive argument with insults in the first place.

Keep in mind that many of us are coming from X-Wing (I know, its a different game, but its by the same developer so its going to have similar problems) and are VERY concerned with the power creep that that game is flooded with. We may criticize more than compliment but that's only because we don't want the amazing imbalance that is X-Wing to transfer over here. I do get it though, the odds of the developers actually paying attention are about a million to one, but there aren't many other avenues available.

Aren't they 2 different teams? So it's possible power creep could happen, but it hasn't yet thankfully. I'd consider Armada the most balanced game I've played besides Star Craft BW.

*cough. I think its happened already in a min-max way just like in Xwing. The efficiency of certain dice modifications in Xwing has caused what people to perceive as huge imbalance/power creep. Old models like the Xwing, Tie fighter, and the Bwing are nearly entirely non-competitive.

I'll point out, I'm talking about double BCC in this game.

Also at this point, Xwing has also seen a large down turn recently, which is unusual considering we just HAD an awesome space combat movie come out.

Also, the dev learned a lot form Xwing that they avoided in Armada. But there's a set of dev which I heard had used to work on Xwing.

As for Brood War, its stated over and over again on TeamLiquid that research indicates that BW had huge huge glaring imbalances for years that only were eventually mitigated by certain champion level gamers. It was a different time period then, of a lot more wait and see. But there were times where win rates for a 50-50 game were something like 20-37% for a certain race.

In terms of modern balance, that would be unforgivable: Modern SC2 is only allowed to fluctuate to 55% at MOST.

Keep in mind that many of us are coming from X-Wing (I know, its a different game, but its by the same developer so its going to have similar problems) and are VERY concerned with the power creep that that game is flooded with. We may criticize more than compliment but that's only because we don't want the amazing imbalance that is X-Wing to transfer over here. I do get it though, the odds of the developers actually paying attention are about a million to one, but there aren't many other avenues available.

Aren't they 2 different teams? So it's possible power creep could happen, but it hasn't yet thankfully. I'd consider Armada the most balanced game I've played besides Star Craft BW.

I don't actually know if they are separate teams, but being from the same company you will see very similar trends.

Perhaps to some, many see imbalance and we can compare this to other games, or we can accept that different people are seeing different things.

I still believe that tournament play should be decided on a Win/Loss basis, rather than the current point system.

The reason I believe that this is the proper system is that it rewards players who are able to secure more points than the opponent in games where there is an obvious list disadvantage.

There is no "rock, paper, scissors" aspect to the game, per se, but certain fleets are guaranteed to excel over others. This is especially true with the squadron "mini-game," as some have referred to it as.

A pure imperial fighter ball is going to shred through slow bombers. On the other hand, those imperial squadrons, which take up a substantial chunk of points in your list, are not going to be quite effective against an all ship-list. Your opponent simply has more ship firepower. However, your ability to minimize ship casualties and score points may not be rewarded in the long run because most of your points have been invested in fighters because that was your choice, and rightfully so.

This is of one, but many examples.

The current system works well, but there is an inherent flaw that penalizes skilled player's whose lists are under matched.

The flaw stems from the fact that your fly your lists blind, meaning that you cannot predict what your opponent is going to bring to the fight (this of course can be minimized by analyzing regional data).

tl;dr: A straight Win/Loss system is better because it rewards skilled players who can pull out tough wins with an under matched list, while the current system unfavorably rewards players who are able to score big points due to highly favorable match ups that are assigned randomly.

I know there are many who disagree with me, and I don't mind being in the minority. Are there others who share the same or similar sentiment regarding the current system?

I still believe that tournament play should be decided on a Win/Loss basis, rather than the current point system.

The reason I believe that this is the proper system is that it rewards players who are able to secure more points than the opponent in games where there is an obvious list disadvantage.

There is no "rock, paper, scissors" aspect to the game, per se, but certain fleets are guaranteed to excel over others. This is especially true with the squadron "mini-game," as some have referred to it as.

A pure imperial fighter ball is going to shred through slow bombers. On the other hand, those imperial squadrons, which take up a substantial chunk of points in your list, are not going to be quite effective against an all ship-list. Your opponent simply has more ship firepower. However, your ability to minimize ship casualties and score points may not be rewarded in the long run because most of your points have been invested in fighters because that was your choice, and rightfully so.

This is of one, but many examples.

The current system works well, but there is an inherent flaw that penalizes skilled player's whose lists are under matched.

The flaw stems from the fact that your fly your lists blind, meaning that you cannot predict what your opponent is going to bring to the fight (this of course can be minimized by analyzing regional data).

tl;dr: A straight Win/Loss system is better because it rewards skilled players who can pull out tough wins with an under matched list, while the current system unfavorably rewards players who are able to score big points due to highly favorable match ups that are assigned randomly.

I know there are many who disagree with me, and I don't mind being in the minority. Are there others who share the same or similar sentiment regarding the current system?

I don't really want to be that guy but I think this thread is more of a critique and discussion specifically about critiques and discussions rather than an invitation to post a specific critique and discussion.

I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you in a thread specifically about this though

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I opened the door to this by mentioning specific gripes that individuals bring, and I don't want to squelch conversation here, but...

Can we please try to keep individual critiques out of this thread? Biggs is making a pretty important point about our collective behavior as a community, and I'd hate to see it sidetracked by side conversations about individual opinions about changes. The squadron game, victory conditions, etc are all great topics for different threads, but I'd like to try to keep this one on point as much as we can.

Thanks guys!

Oh, man, ninja'd on being the wet blanket!

My critique is that you are quite a wet blanket. But yeah, this thread isn't really a spot for discussing specific criticisms, but rather the state of critique inherent in the community.

I am not going to moderate it more than that (and there is a topic for critique, mind you).

Might be a good time to say sorry regarding Floatilla Debate thread. It's perfectly illustrative of how things can go wrong and why there is flame and rage. I called the OP stupid and I tried to edit my comment to remove it. I did before his posted response but not before he had already grabbed the quote.

It was pissed off because a) there was 4 Floatilla threads b) the main one had just been locked, a move that is pretty rare on this forum, so I thought they should take the hint

It never helps to call anybody stupid and it diminishes your own credibility and arguments. So an unreserved appology for that flash of anger. I often type fast and loose. I can be a little polemicial as I would rather have a belief that can be cut to shreds or validated. Sometimes this manifests as pomp or conceit and that is not my intention.

But there is a few key issue that makes me prone to anger.

1) The burden of proof is on a claimant

2) More often than not the claimiant has no evidence for their premise, just an un unfalsifiable claim.

These key ideas of principles of basic argument are rarely met here.

For example:

• It does not make sense that an Admirals ability effects the entire fleet. I say i should be from range 1-5. No particular issue has been rasied and it's essentially weasel words when you say "it does not make sense", according to who? You? Well according to me it does. See how easy it is to play that game?

• "Squadrons are bad for the game, this is about Capital ships". You say squadrons are bad I say they are good. I say this is SW: Armada not SW: Capital Ships. No progress has been made and your claim has not been validated. There is plenty of evidence or ways you could forumalte an argument about squadrons but instead we have an argument for personal preference.

• The all time classic goalpost shifting. This is pretty much universal anywhere you go go. For exmaple: OP: MC80s are terribad>ME: our group is posting results>OP: well that's your meta. Sigh............ In the Floatilla thread the OP undertakes the most brazen evasions. The one time I semi responded with my plan, which actually works, of Jendon/Stele Lifeboat Hunter the OP said "Well a Floatilla costs 18 points compared to 41". Dude you yourself are talking about Lifeboats and not naked Floatillas but he has to move the goalposts to keep in the argument.

• Or terrible arguments. "It takes 6 turns to kill a Lifeboat therefore your assest is out of the fight and it makes it not worth it" This is so unfathomably dumb it blows my mind. You asset is not "out of the fight" if it is driving to its objective. That is as much in the fight as you can possibly be. It doesn't matter how long it takes to kill anything so long as it is part of the plan and you execute. There is no difference sending a floatilla hunter to get a lifeboat than it is saying it will take 4 turns to kill my opponents MC80. You can't kill any asset without turns progessing.

On 1/23/2017 at 10:29 AM, BiggsIRL said:

On the other hand, if you are providing criticism, you also cannot afford to lash out at those you are setting out to convince. "Flotillas are bad for the game" is going to be a hot button topic, sure, but no matter which side of the fence you are on you can't begin name calling, ad hominum attacks, or just saying people on the other side are dumb and need to be banned.

lol, +1

This thread might as well be a who's-who roll call for every one of the people who try to shout down conversations they don't like on these very forums. Truly mind boggling they're also convinced that's not exactly what they do....not to name names...just 90% of the respondents.

1 minute ago, Sygnetix said:

This thread might as well be a who's-who roll call for every one of the people who try to shout down conversations they don't like on these very forums. Truly mind boggling they're also convinced that's not exactly what they do....not to name names...just 90% of the respondents.

This includes both of us now.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

This includes both of us now.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I guess it depends on points of view. For example, after weeks of watching the behavior, I actively engaged in the back and forth in the thread that got locked. It gave me a feel for some people here. After that....?

There's no "us" in the thread I started. To be fair, I acknowledge it was probably too soon after the locked thread, however, the decision to immediately restart was intentional and calculated. Not only does that thread now serve as a reference I'll be using the next time flotillas come up, it's now an immortalized example of how some people here treat others.

7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

This includes both of us now.

Undeadguy do you think he realizes he is included in his own complaint? Does he not get his own hypocrisy?

12 minutes ago, Sygnetix said:

This thread might as well be a who's-who roll call for every one of the people who try to shout down conversations they don't like on these very forums. Truly mind boggling they're also convinced that's not exactly what they do....not to name names...just 90% of the respondents.

Sygnetix, I have never tried to shout down any conversation and am part of this thread, appealing to all to be more civil.

I urge you to please be civil and be a part of this. I understand that this is a challenge in the Internet Age.

9 minutes ago, Sygnetix said:

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I guess it depends on points of view. For example, after weeks of watching the behavior, I actively engaged in the back and forth in the thread that got locked. It gave me a feel for some people here. After that....?

There's no "us" in the thread I started. To be fair, I acknowledge it was probably too soon after the locked thread, however, the decision to immediately restart was intentional and calculated. Not only does that thread now serve as a reference I'll be using the next time flotillas come up, it's now an immortalized example of how some people here treat others.

Neat I got a notification when you quoted me.

Undead and Beatty I appeal to you as well to not let this escalate.

"Calling people out" never helps. It just doesn't. Neither does ascribing motive to others. Or telling someone to just stop talking about something.


I try (and sometimes fail spectacularly) to stick to addressing points, wherever possible. Even when the "points" are things I consider "obvious" and "stupid". Even where the issue has been the topic of "trolling" before.

Try to keep it on topic, addressing only the actual topic (which may include differing opinions, of course), and then report people who run afoul of it. And ignore them, instead of bringing the focus of the thread on to the violation and report. Calling someone a troll - even when they clearly are, in the opinion of yourself and others - just makes things awful. For everyone. Inevitably.

3 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Sygnetix, I have never tried to shout down any conversation and am part of this thread, appealing to all to be more civil.

I urge you to please be civil and be a part of this. I understand that this is a challenge in the Internet Age.

No doubt, which is why I didn't say all. An objective eye can also agree, the percentage might be off, but if it is, it's not by much.

6 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Undead and Beatty I appeal to you as well to not let this escalate.

You got it. I just saw him calling us out and I started to get ready. Backing down.

Though it would be nice if someone neutral would have a side discussion with him.

5 minutes ago, Greatfrito said:

"Calling people out" never helps. It just doesn't. Neither does ascribing motive to others. Or telling someone to just stop talking about something.


I try (and sometimes fail spectacularly) to stick to addressing points, wherever possible. Even when the "points" are things I consider "obvious" and "stupid". Even where the issue has been the topic of "trolling" before.

Try to keep it on topic, addressing only the actual topic (which may include differing opinions, of course), and then report people who run afoul of it. And ignore them, instead of bringing the focus of the thread on to the violation and report. Calling someone a troll - even when they clearly are, in the opinion of yourself and others - just makes things awful. For everyone. Inevitably.

I thought this thread was about discussion problems with Armada? In my experience and opinion, there might be some minor interactions that are questionable and some bad wording on the random card here and there but the most glaring issue I've seen with this game to date is the small but loud minority of the population on this forum that takes a game involving plastic pieces of dork fodder (and their place in it) a little too seriously.

Oh....and the clunkiness of getting through the phases in a massive fleet/fighter ball in the middle of the map and what a nightmare trying to measure distances for movement can be. I think we can all agree on that.

No, read Bigg's whole post, not just the top half.

2 minutes ago, Sygnetix said:

I thought this thread was about discussion problems with Armada?

It's clearly about discussing discussing problems with Armada, how to remain civil, and how and why to respect the opinion of other people, even when said opinion appears to be incredibly negative.

Hence "Meta Community Discussion (No Specific Critiques)".

19 minutes ago, CaribbeanNinja said:

Undead and Beatty I appeal to you as well to not let this escalate.

I've no desire to have any debate with Sygnetix again. It goes no where and ends poorly and I'm sure he feels the same about me.

@Frito

Agreed. That's why my contribution to the Meta Community Discussion is don't be jerk offs just because you either don't agree with someone or they aren't a part of the hyper-active minority on the forum. I didn't specifically call anyone out, although a good portion are doing an excellent job of that themselves. I referenced the thread I did because it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. It's also not the only thread the same group of people do exactly the same thing in.

An objective look at a lot of these individuals might reveal that if your name is recognizable, they're helpful, politely contribute to the conversation, and are cordial. If you aren't, you're a possible target of their sarcasm, aggressive opinion, or dismissing comments. It's this that I am pointing out. The way some people here treat "dumb" questions or topics will drive away new players, which is the last thing this game needs.

The difference is, I "contributed" to the negativity in order to provide a target for these people, then created a thread in order to collect supporting evidence. Was that the initiate goal? Of course not, unless I'll next be accused of either being Biggs or coordinating with him to post this.

Of course this is not the case. That's almost as absurd as demanding someone stop having a conversation or you'll report them in an effort to stop the debate for them. It's just how things worked out.

With this said, I'd be happy to answer PM's but I'm going to stop responding here with respect to the OP so that my observations do not further derail the conversation, even if my contribution is discussed further. See y'all in other topics.

Yeah, kinda a "No specific critiques" in there for a reason. I don't care if this thread turns into a who's-who of people that haven't been good at constructive critique in the past. That would actually be pretty awesome, because it means we are getting somewhere as a community, and hopefully turning the corner to where we can discuss stuff constructively without firing off the cuff at every perceived slight (real or imagined).